THE BIGGER PICTURE - 'QUANTUM OF SOLACE' AND ITS PLACE IN MODERN CINEMA by PAUL ROWLANDS


 


The 22nd 'official' James Bond film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE, is one of the most underrated of the series. This essay looks at the film's part in the Bond legacy, and in modern action cinema in general. It also looks at the film's influences, and its place in a series of like-minded films.


(A) QUANTUM OF LICENCE
QUANTUM OF SOLACE took the crown of the most controversial Bond film from LICENCE TO KILL (1989), a film with which it shares a lot of similarities. Both are the sophomore outings for the actor portraying James Bond (Timothy Dalton in LICENCE TO KILL). They both divided fans for their focussing away from the tropes of the series in order to present a more grounded, violent, gritty thriller, departing from what many fans believe to be the essential elements of the films: humour, a touch of fantasy, sophistication, and escapism.

Both LICENCE and QUANTUM have Bond avenging the death of a woman he cared for (his friend Della Leiter/ his lover Vesper Lynd). In both films, Bond struggles to rein in his blinding thirst for vengeance and remain a dutiful MI6 agent. In the two films, Bond is considered a 'rogue' agent by his superiors, and hunted down by one of the intelligence services (MI6 in LICENCE; the CIA in QUANTUM). Bond is presented as a ruthless man in LICENCE and QUANTUM, and whilst this presentation of the character may strike some fans as un-Bondian, Bond was certainly presented as a man capable of being ruthless in the books, yet expressing distaste for killing in cold blood (something he did twice to earn his '00' status). Interestingly, Bond was actually presented as a man capable of killing in cold blood in the first 'official' Bond film, DR. NO (1962), where we see 007 (Sean Connery) execute Professor Dent (Anthony Dawson). As the series progressed and became more successful, the ruthless aspect of Bond's character was toned down, to the extent that when Scaramanga (Christopher Lee) describes Bond (Roger Moore) as an assassin in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974), it feels a bit off the mark.

There are other, more superficial, similarities. Bond is helped by a beautiful female fellow operative (CIA informer Pam Bouvier/ex-Bolivian Secret Service agent Camille Montes) and also a male fellow operative ('Q'/Felix Leiter). An ally betrays his colleagues and sets off the plot (Ed Killifer/Craig Mitchell). The locations are earthy, humid and reminiscent of/ or are literally South American locations (Isthmus/Haiti, Bolivia). The climax occurs in or near a desert at the villain’s base of operations (Olimpatec Meditation Centre/Perla De Las Dunas). The end has Bond being invited to return to Secret Service duty - a little too neatly, I might add, in the case of LICENCE TO KILL.

At the very least the bravery of the two films in emphasising the rarely seen, ruthless side of Bond's character mark them as two of the most interesting and valuable additions to the canon.

(B) QUANTUM OF ROYALE
The Bond producers sometimes revisit the strongest themes or plot threads from the series. For example, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (1999) was influenced by FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963) and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (1969). In fact, although chronologically the story of CASINO ROYALE is a kind of prequel to O.H. M.S.S. (Bond once again loses the woman he loves in the latter film), the 2006 version is an attempt to make a like-minded film - action-packed and exciting but also emotional, dramatic and luxuriously paced.

CASINO ROYALE had presented Ian Fleming's version of James Bond - a complex and extraordinary man who thrives on conflict but is still uncomfortable with killing in cold blood, and has a sense of righteousness and a romantic heart. The film added to this a Bond capable of making mistakes in judgment, and prone to arrogance and chauvinism. His defining traits were his stamina and his ability to never rest until the job is done, even when faced with certain death. When his heart is opened and broken by Vesper in the movie, it's a powerful conclusion. His chance to escape his soul-destroying vocation has been closed up again, his fate sealed. He is now again the 'blunt instrument' he perfectly embodies.


 
(C) QUANTUM OF KINETICS
Director Marc Forster rings in the changes immediately in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. There is no gunbarrel introduction. Every official Bond film, except CASINO ROYALE, begins with one, the exception being ROYALE, where it follows the monochrome pre-credits sequence. The omission indicates immediately that Forster's film is a different Bond film, and that the ROYALE story is not yet done with. QUANTUM saves its gunbarrel to kick off the end credits crawl, sealing off ROYALE and QUANTUM as the 'introduction' to the 007 we all know and love.

The film begins with a gliding zoom across Lake Garda (complete with ominous, edgy David Arnold music), interspersed with quick-fire cuts of a car chase and of Bond with his 'cold mask' in full effect (the latter reminiscent of the introduction of George Lazenby in O. H. M. S. S. ). A sudden burst of machine gun fire from the heavies sets off one of the most excitingly filmed car chases in movie history. The rapid editing keeps one on the edge of one's seat, and serves to put the audience in the mindset of Bond as he negotiates the twists and turns of the roads whilst averting gunfire, oncoming traffic and police cars in pursuit. Bond is calm under (literal) fire, quick thinking, resourceful and ruthless. It's as exciting and thrillingly filmed as the car chase in Fleming's 'Moonraker' (1955) was thrillingly written. In the pay-off to the scene he displays sly humour ('It's time to get out'). The pre-credits scene sets the tone and pace of the picture.

Dan Bradley's fast-cutting, exhilarating, in-your-face action style was established in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004) and THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (2007), both directed by Paul Greengrass. Some complained that Eon had simply co-opted the BOURNE style for Bond. (Simon Crane handled the Haiti boat chase, actually filmed in Panama.) It has been said that the copious action scenes in the film - the car chase, the Siena footchase, the Haiti boat chase, the shootout in Bregenz, and the aerial dogfight in Bolivia (ending in a freefall skydive that was an original script idea for GOLDENEYE) - are impossible to follow and not suitable for the Bond franchise. Yet the scenes are very much part of the whole intent of the film - to thrust the viewer into the heart of the action and the heat of the moment.

Forster constructed each action scene to reflect an element: earth (the car chase, footchase, shoot-out in Bregenz), water (the boat chase), air (the aerial dogfight) and fire (the climax). He was hands-on in the action sequences, telling ABC.Net: '... I wanted to make it a very tight and fast movie. Sort of this rush, almost like a bullet, that it keeps us at the edge of the seat from beginning to the end. And I felt I wanted to, on purpose, as it is a sequel to CASINO ROYALE, still make it stylistically very different and my own ... I sort of designed the film like that.' This extended to nixing the idea of using flashbacks to refer back to ROYALE. Some viewers who had not seen ROYALE complained that the film was difficult to follow (despite the film being heavily promoted as a direct sequel).

It was Forster's decision to bring Bradley onboard, using his aesthetic to separate ROYALE and QUANTUM, and bring a more immediate pace to a film that was in the end, partly a drama about resolution. The result was the fastest-paced and shortest movie in the series at 106 minutes, coming off of ROYALE, the longest film in the series, at 144 minutes.


Bradley, in collaboration with editors Rick Pearson and Christopher Rouse, changed the landscape of modern action cinema with THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004), something Peter Hunt also achieved way back in 1962 with DR. NO. Their style is in keeping with Hunt's editing style on the first Bond movies, and in particular his fight scenes in his directorial outing, O. H. M. S. S. Matt Damon's brutal fight with Marton Csokas in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY owes a lot to the brilliant Sean Connery/ Robert Shaw train carriage fight in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Forster hired SUPREMACY's co-editor, Rick Pearson, to work alongside his regular editor, Matt Chesse, on QUANTUM, clearly desiring similarly visceral, thrilling results.

Another precedent to Bradley's style can be seen in Alexander Witt's action work on the Ridley Scott films GLADIATOR (2000) and BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001). Witt sometimes reduces frames to emphasise movement; Bradley uses rapid editing to achieve the same aim, letting the audience fill in the missing information, in a similar way to how Hunt would over-crank or eliminate blows in fight scenes or entrances into rooms. Both Witt and Bradley (and Hunt) have a visceral feel to their work.

Witt worked on THE BOURNE IDENTITY (2002) and was replaced by Bradley for the sequel. The same thing happened on CASINO ROYALE. Bradley was a natural successor to Witt for both movies, being in the same vein but with a definite style to his own. He was 'the same, but different' - the audience requirements for every Bond picture, as identified by Bond screenwriter Christopher Wood (1977's THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, 1979's MOONRAKER).

(D) QUANTUM OF HEART
QUANTUM echoes O. H.M.S.S. in that Bond spends the whole of the film on a mission that thematically is secondary to the concerns residing in his heart. The film's narrative reflects the confused mindset of Bond himself. As Bond learns more about the machinations of Quantum and the truth behind Vesper's betrayal, he learns more about himself, whether he is the 'blunt instrument' 'M' describes him as in ROYALE, capable of putting Vesper behind him, or a man wounded by betrayal, out for vengeance and not capable of doing his duty as an agent. The arc of Bond's character in QUANTUM cuts deeper than the one he had in ROYALE.

The film continues the idea of the action scenes reflecting and developing character that was begun in ROYALE, eg. Bond's journey from cold rage to catharsis is evident in the way he is able to finally control his violence. He didn't need to kill Edmund Slate (Neil Jackson) in Haiti, but he leaves Greene stranded in the desert at the end of the film (after he has given up his Quantum secrets), knowing he will be found and killed by his own people. Bond spares Yusef (Simon Kassianides), the man who drove Vesper to betrayal, so that he can be 'sweated' by MI6. Bond's protective nature towards women is revealed when he helps Camille (Olga Kurylenko) to emotionally prepare to murder General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio) in the desert ('You only need one shot. Make it count.'). It is further revealed by his willingness to put her out of her misery when she believes she is going to burn to death, like her family. Meeting Camille makes Bond realise what he could easily become - a person consumed by hate and vengeance, and it begins his healing and maturing process. The pair learn from each other, and their twin mindset brings them too close for comfort. Which is why (apart from the breakneck pace of the film) they don't actually get to consummate their mutual attraction - a twist on the expectaions of a Bond film.

In ROYALE, Bond learned the hard way that you cannot trust anybody. In QUANTUM, he learns far more about himself: that he is capable of love (Vesper) and empathy (see his treatment of Camille above), but that he is also capable of the clear-headedness that goes hand-in-hand with the ruthlessness of his vocation. Michael G. Wilson explained that '...he's tempted by revenge and tempted by becoming a cynic, by losing his humanity. He has to fight all of these things.' The close of QUANTUM has Bond where he is at the end of the 'Casino Royale' (1953) book, ready to do his duty in the manner and mindset required. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is in effect, the epilogue to CASINO ROYALE. Instead of making a bigger film, Eon chose to in fact make a smaller, more intimate, in many ways even less fantastical film.

The film doesn't even try to maintain complete continuity between itself and its predecessor, an aspect many believe to be a major flaw. Wilson announcing that QUANTUM would begin directly after ROYALE's climax inadvertently created a baton for some to hit the film with. Bond is wearing a different suit and haircut than the last scene of ROYALE, and 'M' now has a new, more modern office. It's clear that, as with the two BOURNE sequels, the beginning of the second film (QUANTUM/ ULTIMATUM) makes one immediately question what we thought was the timeline of the ending of the first film (ROYALE/ SUPREMACY). (Vesper's Algerian loveknot is also a different version!)

The only links to ROYALE in QUANTUM are Bond's trauma over Vesper's death and betrayal, and the investigative lead in Haiti being tagged funds from Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) and Mr White (Jesper Christensen), from the previous film. Otherwise it is a new Bond adventure. Which means that with QUANTUM, we get the best of both worlds - a brand new Bond movie (and a unique one at that), and one that continues Bond's arc from the previous film, bringing more depth, nuance and resonance than usual.

Stylistically, it contrasts and complements ROYALE. QUANTUM is lean, direct and concise, where ROYALE was lengthy, melodramatic and luxuriously paced. The opening car chase could be the missing car chase potentially set up in ROYALE when Bond pursues Vesper's 'kidnappers'. The films share a post-credits footchase, and villains (Le Chiffre/ Dominic Greene) who are like Largos (THUNDERBALL, 1965), rather than Blofelds, and are both executed by Quantum, the organisation they work for. Both Vesper and Camille are enigmatic, headstrong, beautiful women with pain in their hearts. Both films end with a revelation that prompts Bond to question what he thought he knew about Vesper - her betrayal (ROYALE) and the fact she was manipulated into betraying him in the first place and did all she could to spare Bond's life, including dying for him (QUANTUM). The two films also end with Bond being invited back in the fold by 'M'.

(E) QUANTUM OF INFLUENCE

Quantum having their meeting through earpieces whilst watching 'Tosca' in Bregenz feels modern, a clever a twist on the elaborate Ken Adam-designed SPECTRE meeting room from THUNDERBALL (1965). It's also reminiscent of the ending of Hitchcock's THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934/ 1956), set during a Royal Albert Hall music performance. Mathieu Almaric's Dominic Greene has some of the pitiful villainy of Peter Lorre, who appeared in the 1934 version. Another nod to Hitchcock is the naming of a minor villain, Guy Haines (Paul Ritter). It is also the name of Farley Granger's lead character in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN (1951).

Villainy, obfuscated by bureaucracy and hidden in plain view, was also an element of Robert Towne's screenplay for Roman Polanski’s CHINATOWN (1974), which was also concerned with the power of those controlling water as a resource. Fittingly, Mathieu Almaric bears more than a passing resemblance to Polanski, who also appeared in CHINATOWN as the hood who slits Jack Nicholson's nostril.

At one point Bond tells 'M', regarding Miss Fields's murder, that 'It's just misdirection', referring to Quantum's talent for misdirecting their opponents. The film itself enjoys misdirecting the audience. It resolutely IS a Bond film, but it subverts expectations. Bond wears a tuxedo, but it's one he steals from the enemy. There are funny quips, but the funniest one is delivered in Spanish by Bond. There's an evil plan for world domination, but Bond is in on it during its early stages instead of when the enemy is ready to pounce. It's also a plan that has an endgame rather than involving an all-out strike. There's a Bond girl with a name to rival Pussy Galore (GOLDFINGER) or Holly Goodhead (MOONRAKER), but you never get to hear it in the film. Gemma Arterton's character is named Strawberry Fields only in the end credits. Greene has a henchman, Elvis (Anatole Taubman), but, like Greene himself, he is physically unremarkable (he even wears a hairpiece), and unlike Greene, is quite a sad and comic character.

Chile’s Atacama Desert was chosen as the location for the climax because Forster believed it represented Bond's 'isolation and loneliness'. It is also a location reminiscent of the eponymous Death Valley location in Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT (1970). That film also has an incongruous desert estate like QUANTUM’s Perla De Las Dunas (in real life, part of the Paranal Observatory).

Marc Forster told Indie Wire that ''I was very aware going into it that my objective ... was to make it more like a '70s, very straightforward revenge movie, and that sort of pace was my point of view.” The '70s were a high tide for political, conspiracy and revenge thrillers, inspired by the shifting culture, the cynicism that grew at the tail end of the 'Swinging '60s' (and that brief Summer of Love), and the growing concerns over Vietnam, political terrorism, the oil crisis and Watergate. A taste of the time can be achieved by viewing such edgy, challenging, paranoid thrillers as THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975) and THE PARALLAX VIEW (1974) (both co-written by NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN's Lorenzo Semple Jr), political thrillers like ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976) and pacy, ultra-violent revenge thrillers like DEATH WISH (1974). QUANTUM has echoes of these kinds of films and is one of the qualities that makes the film a rich and unique entry in the series. However, it is this tone that has divided Bond fans and caused controversy amongst them. Ironically, during the '70’s, Eon and United Artists' response to the times was to make films that would allow audiences to forget their troubles. Sean Connery's final Bond film for Eon, 1971's DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, ushered in the series’ direction of light-hearted adventure movies which was much derided at the time by the same fans who now dislike the more serious direction taken by QUANTUM.

(F) QUANTUM OF META
Whilst no elements of the original short story are utilised in the film, there are certainly Flemingesque elements. Camille Montes is a classic Fleming 'wounded bird'. Although a drop-dead beauty, Camille is humanised by a Flemingesque physical defect: a scarred back courtesy of Medrano leaving 'his mark' on her when she was a child. She shares facets with the character of Judy Havelock from the 1960 short story 'For Your Eyes Only' (housed in the eponymous collection that also included 'Quantum of Solace'), both being women avenging the death of murdered parents who inadvertently come into contact with Bond and end up working with, and being helped by him. The character was renamed Melina Havelock and portrayed by Carole Bouquet in the 1981 Bond film FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. In both QUANTUM, and the F.Y.E.O. short story and film, the nature of revenge is a theme.

Mathis's 'Heroes and Villains' speech from 'Casino Royale' (1953) is transported to a scene at his villa in Talamone, Italy. Mathis’s fate has a precedent in that Raymond Benson had him blinded by the villain in his penultimate continuation novel 'Never Dream of Dying' (2001). Forster's shot of the iguana in the Atacama desert feels very Fleming: the 'Diamonds are Forever' (1956) novel opens and closes with descriptions of a scorpion in the African desert. Unused settings and scenes also came from Fleming. The deleted cliffhanger ending of Bond seemingly dying at the end at the hands of Mr White came directly from the finale of 'From Russia, with Love' (1957). Bond avenging the death of a woman he loved was a facet of 'You Only Live Twice' (1964), the sequel to 'O. H.M.S.S.'. Paul Haggis had originally set his climax in the Alps, as Fleming (and the filmmakers) had in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' (1963). The shot of Vesper's Algerian loveknot in the snow was likely influenced by the 1965 UK cover of the latter novel, which has a gold ring in the snow, with spilled blood beside it.

QUANTUM also tips its hat to the movie series. The iconic image of Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton), dead on her front, painted in gold from head to toe in GOLDFINGER is homaged by the similar death of Miss Fields, this time covered in oil. It's a clever piece of publicity misdirection as it led audiences to believe, like the CIA in the film, that Quantum was concerned with oil, making the reveal more of a surprise.

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977) is referenced explicitly: Bond (Roger Moore)’s cover name is Robert Sterling, and his method of dispatching of Guy Haines's bodyguard (Derek Lea) is similar to the fate of Stromberg's henchman, Sandor (Milton Reid). Bond and Anya (Barbara Bach)’s desert trek, dressed in a black tuxedo and a black cocktail dress respectively, is also evoked by Bond and Camille walking in the desert in similar apparel.

(G) QUANTUM OF HUMANITY

Courtesy of Forster's frequent cinematographer Roberto Schaefer, QUANTUM has a a travelogue feel and level of lushness and gloss that has probably been missing from the series since Jean Tournier's work on MOONRAKER (1979) more than 25 years previously. That said, it shares a desire with Michael Mann's MIAMI VICE (2006) to have real, dangerous, unpredictable (Central/ Southern American) locations, with locals as extras to add authenticity. VICE also starts in media res and has shadowy villains, a difficult central romantic relationship, and heroes who have to trust their instincts in order to survive. (Like QUANTUM, it also faced criticism for failing to live up to audience expectations - the film being dissimilar to the original '80s TV series.)

The world of QUANTUM is opulent, but lived-in and deadly (reflected by Dennis Gassner's more pared-down design work), and even the beautiful buildings, events and locations have other things going on underneath. The 'Greene Planet' cover is a perfect example of this theme - Greene is promoting one thing (environmental protection), whilst actually doing the opposite (exploiting the land and its inhabitants in order to control the water supply).

Quantum's plan is to engineer a military coup in Bolivia which will restore exiled leader General Medrano to power. The organisation has misled Medrano into believing they are helping him in exchange for the rights to any oil they find in Bolivia, when what they are really after is the country's water supply. They have created dams to steal the country's fresh water supply, and Medrano is forced to sign over Bolivia's utility rights to Quantum in order to return to power. Their real crime is a moral one: the people of Bolivia are suffering because of lack of water, and on top of that Quantum are restoring to power a leader who, if his affinity for rape and murder are any indication, is an evil dictator. The story has roots in reality: the Bolivian Cochabamba protests in the year 2000 saw demonstrators protest against the privatization of the country's water works after the multinational corporations involved caused the price to use this basic resource shoot sky high.

In keeping with 'M's insistence that Bond look at 'the bigger picture', so does Bond and so should we. In Quantum's overall plan for world domination, the 'Tierra' project is only one small branch of the tree, but it's an important one. Quantum, unlike SPECTRE, is not concerned with a huge strike against the world for financial benefit. Like a business planning a corporate takeover, it is more concerned in building it's power step by step so that when it's goal is achieved, its power is total. If QUANTUM represents the modern Bond film, then Quantum represents the modern SPECTRE. (Given Paul Haggis's leaving of the Church of Scientology in 2009, some have wondered if he based Quantum on the organisation.)

Forster also shows how the machinations of the villains and the violence of Bond's world affect the innocent. A tourist gets accidentally shot by Mitchell in Siena. A hotel receptionist (Oona Chaplin, the grand-daughter of Charlie Chaplin) suffers a near-rape at the hands of Medrano. The citizens of Bolivia will thirst for water because Quantum is creating a drought. We get to learn that Mitchell has a family, making even his death a tragedy.

The film also allows time to show the 'come-down' from violence, and the effect violence has upon the immediate environment. Bond returns to the safe house in Siena after giving chase to Craig Mitchell (and killing him), and the immediate environment outside the safe house, previously the site of a Palio horse race with a huge crowd, is now empty, with police sirens in the distance. The actual safe house is empty too, with blood flowing down a gutter. We also see Bond's come down after his rescuing of Camille in Haiti, and his glow is a very Bondian moment - the smile of a man who has just identified and engaged the enemy, made a blow against him and prevented him from achieving his ends.

(H) QUANTUM OF LE CARRE
Paul Haggis admitted whilst working on the script that the film was an 'odd mix of Le Carre and Fleming'. Haggis was no doubt referring to the political intrigue of the story, with both the CIA and MI6 willing to deal with Greene if it means getting their hands on the oil supply they have been duped to believe he has found in Bolivia. The CIA are even willing to get rid of Bond to ensure the deal goes through.

The author is concerned with the emotional costs of espionage, and the sordid reality of counterintelligence, and in 1965, one couldn't get two espionage films as different as each other as THUNDERBALL and THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD. It's arguable that Le Carre's work exists in opposition to Fleming's work, and in an odd way, the pair contrast and complement each other. Fleming doesn't shy from showing what espionage and the act of murder do to Bond's psyche, but in the opening chapter of 'Goldfinger' Bond describes regret as 'unprofessional' (as 'M' does at the close of QUANTUM to Bond) and leading to 'death-watch beetle in the soul'. Le Carre's work has that very air of regret embedded in it's spine, and the cynicism that Michael G. Wilson sees Bond as attempting to avoid in QUANTUM.

Le Carre, despite writing in the espionage genre, is no fan of 007. He told Malcolm Muggeridge in a 1966 interview for BBC Radio: 'I dislike Bond. I'm not sure that Bond is a spy. I think that it's a great mistake, if one's talking about espionage literature, to include Bond in this category at all.' He went on to describe Bond as 'an international gangster'.

Despite Le Carre's distaste for 007, Bond screenwriters like Paul Dehn (GOLDFINGER), John Hopkins (THUNDERBALL), and Jeffrey Caine (GOLDENEYE, 1995), all found themselves working on adapatations of Le Carre's books, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH to SKYFALL) and Peter Morgan (early drafts of SKYFALL), seeing their efforts unfilmed and rewritten respectively. Sean Connery gave one of his finest performances in THE RUSSIA HOUSE (1990), and Pierce Brosnan was equally excellent in THE TAILOR OF PANAMA (2001), playing a role that in the original 1996 novel could, ironically, be seen as Le Carre's version of what a real-life 007 might be like (he describes his appearance and background in much the same way as Fleming did).

THE CONSTANT GARDENER (2005) was based on the 2001 novel by Le Carre (and adapted by Jeffrey Caine). It is one of his more overtly political espionage thrillers, and is an angry condemnation of the exploitation of the Third World by big-business pharmaceutical companies. Like Bond in QUANTUM, Ralph Fiennes (SKYFALL) tries to uncover the truth behind the death of the woman he loved (Rachel Weisz, in real-life, Daniel Craig's wife), and the espionage elements of the plot are secondary to the emotional journey he is undergoing in his heart. By the end of the story, he has learned he wasn't betrayed by his lover (wife). Both films involve questionable ethics on the part of the security services. And the two films share beautiful but earthy locations (Kenya/ South America) that reflect the soul of the lead character. Both films end in the desert and make use of local extras to add to authenticity and emphasise the human cost of the issues involved in the actions of the 'villains'. THE CONSTANT GARDENER also, like QUANTUM, had an unorthodox choice behind the camera: Brazilian filmmaker Fernando Mereilles, who had directed the acclaimed crime docu-drama CITY OF GOD (2002).

(I) QUANTUM OF BOURNE
The direction taken by QUANTUM did not come out of thin air. Concern over big-business exploitation of the less fortunate parts of the world, the CIA's intrusive role in Middle East politics to ensure access to an oil supply, and in a post 9/11 world, the autonomy of the CIA or factions of it were also evident in other films contemporary to QUANTUM OF SOLACE.


Released the same year as THE CONSTANT GARDENER was the geo-political thriller SYRIANA, written and directed by Stephen Gaghan (Oscar winner for writing TRAFFIC, 2000) and featuring Jeffrey Wright, Felix Leiter in ROYALE and QUANTUM. Like TRAFFIC, SYRIANA has several interconnected stories located in different cities and countries (US, Switzerland, Spain, Lebanon, Iran), and is concerned with the human cost of business - here maintaining the US's oil supply, in TRAFFIC the narcotics trade. QUANTUM shares the location-hopping, the beautiful but lived-in, shot-on-location look of the photography, and the cynical politics: in both films the CIA is willing to commit murder, even if it is one of their own agents, or in the case of QUANTUM, a 'brother' agent, to ensure the US's oil supply from the Middle East. Both films also suffered under the weight of expectation (many it seemed expected another TRAFFIC, which had been directed by Steven Soderbergh and not Gaghan), and were accused of confusing storytelling, when all was asked was close attention and an open mind.

These ethical issues were arguably in the cultural ether. In 2008, THE DARK KNIGHT replaced THE BOURNE SUPREMACY as the game-changer for the genre, with its blending of real-world fears where people are not out to destroy the world but to destabilise it from within for their own ends, and where the emotional impact of the characters’ choices have a real resonsance in the story. This new performance-driven action movie necessitated deeper, richer performances from the actors. Released later the same year, QUANTUM more than met the gauntlet thrown down by THE DARK KNIGHT.

The success of THE BOURNE IDENTITY in 2002 has regularly been viewed as an influence on the less fantastical, gritty approach afforded to CASINO ROYALE in 2006. Such an approach was already in the works as far back as 2003 when Eon and MGM were developing the $60m movie JINX, featuring Halle Berry's character from DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002). It's interesting that Eon was more interested in making a spin-off film rather than a new Bond film directly after DIE ANOTHER DAY. But then Michael G. Wilson did reveal to The New York Times in 2005 that 'I was desperately afraid, and Barbara was desperately afraid, we would go downhill... We (were) running out of energy, mental energy. We need(ed) to generate something new, for ourselves.'

Neal Purvis and Robert Wade had written a first draft that had impressed everybody, including director Stephen Frears (director of, amongst other diverse films, the hard-hitting thrillers/ dramas THE HIT, 1984; THE GRIFTERS, 1990; and LIAM, 2000), but MGM pulled the plug, possibly because of the disappointing business generated by Halle Berry's CATWOMAN (2004), and female-led action pics in general such as CHARLIE'S ANGELS: FULL THROTTLE (2003) and KILL BILL, VOL. 1 (2003). The writers confirmed to hmss.com that it was 'a fairly down-to-earth espionage picture', and that when they began talking with the producers about the next film, it was soon made clear it would be CASINO ROYALE and it 'was obviously going to be in the same vein'.

If THE BOURNE IDENTITY had a discernible influence upon CASINO ROYALE, it's likely that its success showed Eon that a Bond movie, in the more low-key, character-based, 'down-to-earth' style of the JINX movie and fittingly, the 'Casino Royale' book, would be accepted by the masses. That the film had made around as much profit as DIE ANOTHER DAY on more than half the Bond film's budget cannot have escaped Eon and Sony's notice either. That said, the film's influence on the new direction of the Bond series has been overstated by many. SUPREMACY certainly influenced the style of QUANTUM to be sure in that Bradley was hired to create similarly constructed action sequences. But if the influence goes any further, then one could equally ask if Jason Bourne was influenced by Bond's initials, his amnesiac state at the end of the 'You Only Live Twice' book, and his emotional state at the end of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (both characters lost their wives).

Bond and Bourne are as influenced by each other as anyone working in a similar field would be. It's also worth remembering that QUANTUM is absolutely not offering a similar experience to a BOURNE movie. The world of the Bourne movies is limited in scope. The locations could be anywhere and are pretty anonymous. The movies are all about Bourne's story and not 'the bigger picture' of international politics. The action is minimalistic. The world of Bond/ QUANTUM is international and the locations are integral to the story, tone and feel of the movies (Forster commented that the script was rewritten to suit the locations). This particular film (and ROYALE) are much more concerned with Bond's personal journey, but the stakes are not just emotional but global. The action might be more minimalistic in this film, but I am yet to see a Bourne film that involves elegant Bondian tropes like Aston Martins, tuxedos, beautiful women in cocktail dresses, aerial dogfights,Tosca, and the villains' headquarters in the desert. The importance is in the details. Bond is Bond. Bourne is Bourne. They swim in the same waters, but they are different beasts.

(J) THE BIGGER PICTURE
Whilst many are concerned with who influenced whom, it very much seems that whilst the Bond series created the modern action movie as we know it, it is now part of the new genre it created, and helps to develop it by responding to the audiences' and their own needs for change. Sometimes it leads the pack (CASINO ROYALE), and sometimes it is more part of the pack (QUANTUM OF SOLACE). 80s action blockbusters like COMMANDO (1985) and DIE HARD (1988) owe a debt to 007 with their witty double-entendres deflating the effect of the explosive violence. LICENCE TO KILL was an unsuccessful attempt to capture some of that audience share. 'Rebooting' was in the air in the 00s, with studios trying to bring budgets down, franchises losing their steam, and lead actors getting older and not wanting to repeat themselves, especially if it meant not receiving significantly larger paycheques. Audiences wanted to see their favourite characters, but in a different light. And the events of 9/11 ushered in a feeling of guilt and revulsion at action cinema that was frivolous and didn't in some way reflect the concerns of the audience. Action heroes heroes were no longer invincible, were conflicted and asked difficult questions of themselves.

THE BOURNE IDENTITY opened nine months after 9/11 and despite deep concern from its makers that it would be rejected by audiences, was the perfect movie for the times. Interestingly, the most influential reboot, Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS (2005), seems to have been influenced by GOLDENEYE a decade earlier (his 2010 film INCEPTION used O.H.M.S.S. as the model for the snowbound action scenes, and he is an unabashed fan of the series). Both films spend a while setting up the new version and new world of the lead character, which is less glamorous and more gritty but still has a 'heroic' sheen; Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and his gadgets are clearly inspired by 'Q' (Desmond Llewelyn) and his handiwork; Christian Bale is quite Bondian in his scenes where he tries to convince people he's a billionaire playboy. For all its attempt to reinvent, BATMAN BEGINS is smart enough to keep all the motifs that audiences love, in much the same way a Bond film is always unmistakeably a Bond film. Both films acknowledge the ridiculousness of its hero in a realistic, modern setting, but by the end of the film, what we have is a restatement of the virtues of Bond/ Batman rather than a radical reinvention. The Bond series has re-booted itself after each film, and especially so with the introduction of a new actor playing Bond. The series has lasted fifty years by adapting where it needs to, and preserving its essential elements. The success of the series, with 22 (official) versions of essentially the same story and six different actors, has proven to filmmakers and studios that the reboot concept works. As such, how much the rebooting of Bond was influenced by Bourne, Jack Ryan (2002's THE SUM OF ALL FEARS was a franchise reboot, and Ryan is similarly uncomfortable with killing and operates in a shadowy political world) et al is negligible for a series that has rebooted itself time and again and pioneered the practice, just not as overtly as they did with CASINO ROYALE.

Any action hero, especially in the espionage genre, owes a nod to 007 in either his literary or cinematic form or both. Someone once said that The Beatles influenced every band after - bands either wanted to homage them or make as different music as possible. The same could be said for Bond.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a unique Bond movie in that it is very much a Bond movie, but is also a bold and ambitious attempt to have a Bond film reflect the world we live in and reverberate in the character of Bond himself. Part of a series of similarly concerned films, it is one of the richest and most exciting Bond films, as well as one of the most artistically and emotionally satisfying. It will be interesting to see how much SKYFALL will be influenced by the film.

RECOMMENDED VIEWING: All the films mentioned in this piece are worth watching to gain a deeper understanding, enjoyment and context for QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

My article on the making of the film can be read here.

SOURCES:
'Bond Franchise is Shaken and Stirred' by Sharon Waxman, New York Times, 15th October 2005.
'Bond Week Interview: QUANTUM OF SOLACE Director Marc Forster' by Alex Billington, Firstshowing.net site, 11th November 2008.
'Casino Royale' by Ian Fleming, Jonathan Cape, 1953.
'The Constant Gardener' by John Le Carre, Hodder & Stoughton, 2001.
'David Stratton Interviews Daniel Craig and Marc Forster', ABC Net At The Movies, November 2008.
'For Your Eyes Only' (collection of short stories) by Ian Fleming, Jonathan Cape, 1960.
'Goldfinger' by Ian Fleming, Jonathan Cape, 1959.
'HMSS Interviews Neal Purvis and Robert Wade', HMSS.com, 2007, currently offline.
'James Bond Series Takes a QUANTUM Leap' by Anthony Breznican, USA Today, 4th April 2008.
'James Bond Was a Neo-Fascist Gangster, Says John Le Carre' by Anita Singh, Telegraph UK site, 17th August 2010.
'Marc Forster Interview, QUANTUM OF SOLACE', Moviesonline site, November 2008.
'Marc Forster Talks WORLD WAR Z, QUANTUM OF SOLACE and The Risk of Failure' by Todd Gilchrist, The Playlist site, 11th September 2011.
'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' by Ian Fleming, Jonathan Cape, 1963.
'Quantum of Solace'- Review by Craig Arthur, 'A Decade In Review: The Best Spy Films, Part II - 2004-2009'.
'Quantum of Solace'. Wikipedia entry.



Paul Rowlands is a Japan-based writer. After completing a BA Humanities course (majoring in English and Science) at the University of Chester, he moved to Japan in 1999. He writes for the James Bond magazine, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and has had an almost lifelong obsession with cinema, something the advent of DVD only increased.

BLUE VALENTINE (Derek Cianfrance, 2010)

Michelle Williams, Ryan Gosling, Faith Wladyka, John Doman, Mike Vogel. 112 minutes.

When we get to the end, we think about how it all began
by Paul Rowlands

BLUE VALENTINE is a companion piece to the likes of LA NOTTE (1961), SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (1973), BAD TIMING (1980) and EYES WIDE SHUT (1999), all of which chart troubled romantic relationships. VALENTINE tells the story of the dissolution of a volatile, fragile marriage that once had real worth. The end of the relationship is made even more poignant by Cianfrance's decision to tell the story in a non-linear fashion, and slip time frames, between their hesitant, awkward courtship and their current estrangement, linking it with the likes of the brilliant ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004).

For Cianfrance, this film was the walking definition of a labour of love, having spent 12 years and 67 drafts on the project. The project was inspired by his own parents' divorce when he was 20. (The title comes from both a 1978 album and song by Tom Waits.) The two leads had been involved with the project for at least half a decade each. Gosling had been involved for a slightly less period of time since his role was to originally have been played by Heath Ledger (the father of Williams's real-life daughter). Upon his death the production of the film was delayed for a year. Cianfrance's original idea was to film the courtship scenes and the break-up scenes six years apart. What he got was a month, which he used productively by having Gosling and Williams live together as a couple to aid the reality of their long-term relationship on film.

The emotionally brave performances of Gosling and the Oscar-nominated Williams go beyond standard acting to the point that the film feels like a documentary: Cianfrance's hand-held, lo-fi filming style beautifully complementing their naturalistic work. (There were no rehearsals and Cianfrance usually only shot one take. ) The courtship scenes were shot on 16mm, and the break-up scenes with RED cameras. The two stories really do feel like two differently shot films that were shot many years apart. The courtship scenes are more colourful and loose; the break-up scenes are shot in a darker, edgier, more hand-held style. The former emphasises hope; the latter fate. Impressively, the actors have convincingly aged in the later story too. (Gosling's balding appearance is based on Cianfrance's real appearance.)
The couple in the film could be any couple who are amazed to find in each other kindred spirits, but are in many ways different people. The idea that couples who survive are the ones who change together is proven apt here. Parenthood and the passage of time change the couple, but differently, to the point that they become incompatible. BLUE VALENTINE is provocative and compelling enough to make the viewer ask questions of the characters, and also themselves if they are in a similar situation. Could the couple have made it work? Is any one of them more to blame than the other? Should they have never gotten together? Were they doomed from the start? Is how we begin our relationships a factor in their survival? (Their relationship arguably proves Tolstoy's idea that relationships made on an unmade bed don't last.) Is love alone enough to sustain a relationship in the harsh realities of this world?

The arrival of the film into theatres was as difficult as it's birth. The MPAA objected to the sexual explicitness of the hotel room sex scenes and awarded the film an NC-17, the kiss of death for it's commercial chances. Miramax head honcho Harvey Weinstein submitted an appeal and the film won an R certificate. The sex scene is explicit, but tasteful and artistic, and pivotal in communicating that this couple can no longer be intimate and kind to each other. As in BAD TIMING, the audience realises that this relationship is doomed after a sex scene. We realise that the couple have gone beyond the pale: left alone with a chance for intimacy they resort to hurting and abusing each other. The scene is devastating: it's futuristic 'blue' colour scheme disorienting (the pair are drunk in the scene), the hand-held camerawork and cramped conditions enmphasising that their relationship has become a prison. The scene, and in fact the whole film, owes something to the work of John Cassavetes. It has the ominous, nervous, doomy feel that a picture like WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE (1974) had.

But this is Cassavetes with more of a dreamy, hazy, poetic feel in the early part of the story. Although the film is certainly bleak, there is a positive, motivating message to be had. Love is elusive and ethereal, and you cannot hold it in your hand. It can slip away without warning. But one thing is for sure, you cannot keep it if you don't care for it and you don't work at it. (As U2's 'One' would agree).

Cianfrance's instincts as a filmmaker are excellent. The film marks the arrival of a major new talent. As a director of actors he knew what information to impart to the leads and what information to hold back. An example is the memorable scene where Williams tapdances to the accompaniment of Gosling singing and playing the ukilele. Gosling was only told to ask Williams if she had a 'special talent' at a certain point in the scene. Cianfrance knew tap dancing was her 'special talent', and made sure Gosling was carrying the ukilele. The scene that transpired seems improvised because it was. The director also commented that he was lucky that the pair had instant chemistry. (They had only briefly met once before and had both acted in 2003's THE UNITED STATES OF LELAND, but didn't share any scenes.) As a writer and editor, his instincts are equally excellent. Films with narratives that slip between past and present succeed or fail on the points where the narratives slip. Get it right and you have THE GODFATHER, PART II (1974). Cianfrance gets it perfect. The film isn't melodramatic or overdone, but feels emotionally honest. It successfully creates the illusion of real life and is a cinematic transposition of the way we remember things: when we get to the end, we think about how it all began.

BLUE VALENTINE is brilliantly made. Brutal but beautiful. Harrowing but moving. An examination of the birth and death of a relationship. It's reputation can only increase over time. The film is one of the first masterpieces of the new decade.

NB. Cianfrance and Gosling will soon collaborate again on the crime thriller THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES. Gosling will play a professional motorcyclist who starts robbing banks to support his baby son; Bradley Cooper (THE A-TEAM, 2010) will play the cop on his tail. It sounds really exciting. As Cianfrance has noted, whereas BLUE VALENTINE was violence without guns, this new film will literally have guns.

AVAILABILITY: The film is available on DVD and Blu-ray with a Cianfrance commentary and deleted scenes.
SOURCES:
The commentary and special features on the R1 DVD/ Bluray.

Paul Rowlands is a Japan-based writer. After completing a BA Humanities course (majoring in English and Science) at the University of Chester, he moved to Japan in 1999. Paul writes for the James Bond magazine, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and has had an almost lifelong obsession with cinema, something the advent of DVD only increased. An aspiring novelist, short story writer and screenwriter, he has until now mainly wrote about film for his own pleasure, various blogs and for so far unpublished projects.

WINGS OF DESIRE (Wim Wenders, 1987)

Bruno Ganz, Solveig Dommartin, Otto Sander, Curt Bois, Peter Falk, Nick Cave. 127 minutes. Monochrome, with some colour sequences.

An Angel's Odyssey
by Brent Wills Bechtel, with Paul Rowlands.

WINGS OF DESIRE is one of the most celebrated films of recent times, but the universality of its themes, shown by the success of its remake (CITY OF ANGELS, 1997), demand that it be seen by those who would normally give foreign-language art films a wide berth. The film's director, Wim Wenders, was inspired to create the film after returning to his native homeland of Germany following a period spent partly in the US, working with Hollywood actors and filmmakers.

Wenders was fascinated by the pop culture and wide open spaces that the country offered, but grew frustrated by the red tape and the inability to achieve his visions in natural settings rather than on a sound stage or in a studio. His Hollywood debut as a director, the Francis Ford Coppola-financed HAMMETT (1982), turned out to be a disaster. Coppola had invited Wenders to Hollywood in 1978, but halted production on the film because he was unhappy with the changes Wenders had made to the script. Whilst Coppola shot the film that eventually bankrupted him, ONE FROM THE HEART (1982), Wenders set about editing the footage he had and even made a new film, THE STATE OF THINGS (1982). In the latter film, a director’s unexpected halt in filming due to a producer's troubles parallels Wenders' own experience with Coppola during the shooting of the film and reflects the filmmaker's disdain for big-budget Hollywood filmmaking and its limitations and political bickering. Ever resourceful, Wenders used a film crew he discovered in Portugal to make the movie. They were shooting Raul Ruiz's THE TERRITORY (1981), and were running out of money. After seeing the finished cut of HAMMETT, the studio was unimpressed (Wenders claimed they found it 'too lyrical', 'too slow' with not 'enough action'). Reshoots were demanded that eventually blew up into a complete reshoot of the original picture. It is rumoured that from 70% to 90% of the released version is footage directed by Coppola and not Wenders.

Despite the trauma and professional embarassment, Wenders managed to turn a negative into a positive, with the experience distilling in him the passion to create deeper, more visually pleasing and untraditional films. In Wenders’ own words, "Sex and violence was never really my cup of tea; I was always more into sax and violins." (The latter is also the title of a Talking Heads song on the soundtrack to 1991’s UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD.) The first film was PARIS, TEXAS (1984), which was ironically shot in the U.S., but actually made with mostly French and German money. Acclaimed as a masterpiece, it won three awards at the 1984 Cannes Film Festival, including the coveted Palme d'or (Golden Palm). Its success must have cemented his decision to make more European style pictures, since the second film took him back to his home country, and reflects his deep love of his homeland. He returned to Germany a man who had beaten by the Hollywood system only to make one of the greatest studies of alienation in American life (PARIS, TEXAS) outside of Hollywood. Wenders was a filmmaker at the top of his game, and his next film was eagerly anticipated. It was released there as DER HUMMEL UBER BERLIN, literally 'The Sky Over Berlin', in 1987. The film is known in the West as WINGS OF DESIRE.


The story is primarily viewed from the perspective of one angel in particular, Damiel, played by Bruno Ganz in a paradoxically very 'human' performance. Ganz, who had previously collaborated with Wenders on THE AMERICAN FRIEND, captures the naive innocence of an otherworldly being observing and falling in love with a human trapeze artist (the beautiful Solveig Dommartin). The angels' black and white perspective gives a clear understanding that they view the world as divided into two parts; the good and bad, and lacking the nuances of a mortal soul perspective.

The beginning of the film is a journey through the day of two of the angels as they go about “guiding” humans, and is filled with all the depth and angst one would expect from German cinema. Cassiel (Otto Sander from 1981's DAS BOOT), Damiel’s melancholy associate in the film, at one point, after being unable to prevent a man from leaping from a building, throws himself off the Berlin Victory Column (an interesting juxtaposition, victory and death) to try and understand what happened. Cassiel tries to experience the frenetic last moments of this suicide in a rapid barrage of disjointed scenes, blurring lights, and stock images of Berlin burning after a bombing. These bittersweet moments are deep glimpses into the personal spaces of human lives. Spaces that are not usually shared even amongst humans, that angels lack the perspective to relate to, but are privy to nonetheless. The imagination of children, the joy, loss, and even the ability to feel grades of heat or cold, all stream through this movie and settle comfortably on the viewer (or perhaps uncomfortably in some moments), piercing the heart which is one minute elated, the next sad, running the entire gamut of human emotion. Wenders allows the viewer to personally experience the vast human condition in a short time. At one point in the film, Damiel follows an old man (Curt Bois, CASABLANCA, 1942) named Homer (aptly named as he is a storyteller) around as he makes his slow odyssey to various parts of this once decimated city. The man clutches to his old fond memories, toting around an antiquated photo album of his beloved Berlin like a man still wallowing in the past, while hesitantly making his way through the present. These photos come to life, utilizing old news reels of the devastation of the bombings of Berlin during WWII, and capture the tragedy and spirit of the residents of the city during that time. This man is the “true” heart of the film. He feels displaced by the modern city he still calls home. These scenes are some of the most heart-aching moments in the film because they ring so faithful and true.

In Damiel’s wanderings he comes across Peter Falk (as himself) having a cup of coffee and a cigarette. (It says volumes about the unique tone of the film that despite its earnestness, Falk's appearance isn't jarring.) Falk seems to see be able to sense the presence of Damiel (as can most of the children in the film) and talks to him about what it is like to feel the sensations of smoking and the simple act of holding a warm cup of coffee in your hands when it’s cold. This seems to give Damiel the incentive he needs, and he makes his choice to become mortal. Giving up his angelic wings to pursue his love, Damiel literally falls to Earth, arriving with a suit of tarnished armor that strikes him, causing him to experience pain and bleeding for the first time. His childlike enjoyment of the sensation leads him to feel his wound and taste his own blood. He stands, and experiences the cold weather of Berlin in winter. Wrapping his arms around himself and smiling, he walks along the graffiti covered Wall (still standing when Wenders made this film) seeing the expressions, vulgar and poetic, that represent humanity. These aspects may seem irrelevant overall, vignettes in a complicated and busy world, but they serve brilliantly to lead the viewer into reminders about the everyday joys of life we tend to take for granted. Little things in life are significant indeed. All have a part to play in everyday living. This film is filled with such moments, all of which remain in the mind for a long time.

Shot in beautiful black and white sepia that jumps to colour to represent the POV of the human characters (very A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, 1946) by Henri Alekan, the famed cinematographer used the same hand-made filter from his grandmother’s stocking as he did for Jean Cocteau's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1946). This one of a kind filter, combined with exquisite camera movements, gives the viewer a unique look at the world as seen by the angels who drift amongst humans, guiding and comforting us. The use of black and white depicts the angel’s inability to see gradations of the colored world of mortals. The colored world lures some angels to cast themselves out of the Heavenly Host and experience the sensations of living, despite the pain and desperation (which are equally desired by the angels along with the joy and pleasure) experienced by mortals.

The soundtrack to the film adds immensely to the experience as well. It combines an original score by Jurgen Kneiper, with angelic voices and enigmatic, ethereal soundscapes, with eclectic modern pop music by such artists as Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (performing two of their songs 'The Carny' and 'From Her to Eternity' live in a club), Laurie Anderson, and Crime and the City Solution (also performing a song 'Six Bells Chime' live in the club).The club scenes again reflect the duality, sensuality and feeling of being human and alive.

Much of the film was improvised, and Wenders focussed on the mood above all. It ended up being a more serious film than originally intended. Deleted from the final cut were Cassiel enjoying mimicking human actions, and a pie fight in a bar involving Damiel and Marion that was originally supposed to end the film. Cassiel was also meant to turn human too, but this was left to be explored in the sequel. There was also meant to be a third angel who was female (she can briefly be seen in the library scene).

The screenplay was a collaborative effort between Wenders, Richard Reitinger and Peter Handke, the acclaimed Austrian playwright and novelist who previously worked with Wenders on THE GOALKEEPER'S FEAR OF THE PENALTY (1972, from his novella) and THE WRONG MOVE (1975). John Updike referred to Handke as “the greatest writer of his language” in one of his articles for 'The Observer', and is widely regarded as the most important postmodern writer since Beckett. Handke was responsible for most of the dialogue, the poetic narration and the poem 'Songs of Childhood', which opens the movie, setting the tone of innocence that is portrayed throughout the film. It serves as a starting point for the angels themselves, who are still very child-like in nature, but soon evolve, as the humans they watch, into the world of experience after making the choice to become mortal. This poem is the axis upon which the film revolves, being brought around verse by verse, again and again throughout the film. It is important to understand this poem (or at least read it) to gain insight into what Wenders was attempting in this film. Here is a brief excerpt:

'When the child was a child,
It was the time for these questions:
Why am I me, and not you?
Why am I hee, and not there?
When did time begin, and where does space end?
Is life under the sun not just a dream?
Is what I see and hear and smell
Not just an illusion of a world before the world?
Given the facts of evil and people,
Does evil really exist?
How can it be that I, who I am,
Didn't exist before I came to be?
And that, someday, I, who I am,
Will no longer be who I am?

This film is Wenders' stick lance against a tree, and the film continues to quiver in the mind long after the film has ended. It asks the hard questions in an innocent, rhetorical way that ultimately has no answers, as Damiel discovers upon giving up his angelic being to roam, childlike, in the realm of mortals.

The film received accolades from critics, as well as a Best Director Award at the 1987 Cannes Film Festival. Wenders dedicated the film “to all the former angels, but especially to Yasujiro, François and Andrei." This is a reference to fellow filmmakers Yasujiro Ozu (the subject of his documentary TOKYO-GA, 1985), Francois Truffaut (THE 400 BLOWS, 1959) and Andrei Tarkovsky (SOLARIS, 1972).

The film, while complete in and of itself, ends with a To Be Continued. Wenders, true to his word, delivered the sequel entitled FARAWAY, SO CLOSE! six years later. The story focuses on Damiel’s angelic partner, Cassiel, becoming mortal. Cassiel finds being human and experiencing time much harder to adjust to than the more optimistic Damiel. Despite winning the Grand Prix du Jury and being nominated for a Palm d’Or at Cannes in 1993, the film suffers artistically from too many plot strands, and elements such as farcical gangsters and daring rescue attempts that feel out of place in an otherwise intimate, meditative film. The film includes cameos from people like Gorbachev, Lou Reed, Willem Dafoe, and others who all seem to want a piece of what WINGS OF DESIRE offered. Wenders seems to be at his best when his stories are starkly simple with complexity coming from the texture of the film's environments. FARAWAY takes place after the fall of the Berlin Wall, whereas WINGS was filmed before the Wall was brought down, and does not include Handke’s input in any way.

Wenders himself states:

''WINGS OF DESIRE had been essentially a fairy tale. Or maybe a fable…the angels had been some sort of metaphor for a better person we’re all carrying inside ourselves. And FARAWAY, SO CLOSE! deals much more with the contemporary reality of that city - a certain hostility toward everybody who doesn’t belong, a certain kind of disorientation that the German people just go through at this point.''

The continuing story of Damiel and Marion, who are now married and still very much in love, is entertaining, the backdrop of a changed Berlin fascinating, and the harder tone a nice contradt to the whimsical poeticism of the first film. Whilst not as engaging and poetic (perhaps due to Handke’s absence?), or as deep or as spiritual as the original, it is still a worthwhile movie. That said, it feels less essential and resonant, and there is some fundamental piece missing from the whole endeavour.

Five years after the sequel came the inevitable Hollywood remake of the original, Brad Silberling's CITY OF ANGELS, with the story relocated to L.A. (There had already been an Indian remake, NJAN GANDHARVAN, in 1990.) What wasn't inevitable was Wenders giving the film a seal of approval when it got greenlit. Nicolas Cage plays the Damiel equivalent, renamed Seth. Cassiel is played by African-American actor Andre Braugher (GLORY, 1989). Marion becomes a surgeon renamed Maggie, and played by Meg Ryan. The ending is unexpectedly dark and in the spirit of FARAWAY, SO CLOSE!'s ending: Seth gives up his immortality only to watch Maggie die. It is a bitter, less fairy-tale version of the original, and will almost leave the viewer who enjoyed that movie with a bad taste that threatens to expunge the beauty of the original from the soul of the viewer. It can only be considered a remake in the loose sense of the word. This adaptation apparently appeals to a more superficial American audience, who is used to being spoon-fed its emotions, but the character development does not give you more than a superficial idea of who these characters are, and what they represent. The few emotions evoked by this movie are disingenuous and forced upon the viewer by the soundtrack and the maudlin acting of Cage. There is no redemptive quality in this film as Seth is left alone, after giving up his immortality to be with Ryan and sharing a couple of days with her before she dies in a 'tragic' accident.

Wenders continues to follow his very unique creative path, working on what topics interest him (commercial or uncommercial), which collaborators inspire him, and wherever he can find finance. He makes feature films, documentaries, music videos, and is currently interested in the possibilities of 3D - his dance documenatary PINA (2011) was shot using the format. His biggest success since WINGS has been his documentary on Cuban musicians, BUENA VISTA SOCIAL CLUB (1999). Interestingly, his least well-received films have been the feature films he has shot in English, THE MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL (2001, a collaboration with U2 singer Bono) being particularly badly reviewed and little-seen.

In WINGS OF DESIRE we have one of the most profoundly emotional and spiritual cinematic experiences a filmgoer will ever have. It not only stuns the viewer with its visual content, but the film sinks deep within the recesses of the psyche and spiritual self and strikes angelic chords that will resonate long after the credits end. It takes the essence of life, distills it, and allows the viewer to absorb and comprehend what makes us human and divine. The film is a life-affirming spiritual journey from darkness into light, and stands out as a spiritual gem of the director's ouevre. Wenders’ love letter to the city of Berlin, it shines brightly with hope, love, and a deep seeded joy for life. Justly acclaimed as one of the greatest foreign or art films, it is actually one of the most moving and beautiful films ever put on film, period.


NB. Marion (Dommartin) is one of many performers in the Circus Alekan. The name of the circus is of course a nod to the film’s cinematographer, Henri Alekan. Dommartin was Wenders' lover for some time and made her debut in WINGS OF DESIRE, learning the acrobatics in a mere eight weeks. She had worked on the editing to TOKYO-GA and later acted in and co-wrote UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD with him. Sadly, she died from a heart attack in 2007 at the age of 45. Wenders is a co-member on the advisory board of the World Cinema Foundation, founded by Martin Scorsese, which is dedicated to finding and reconstructing world cinema films that have been long neglected. Nick Cave can also be seen in such films as GHOSTS ... OF THE CIVIL DEAD (1989), JOHNNY SUEDE (1991), and THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (2007). Aside from writing various film scores, he also wrote the THE PROPOSITION (2005) and a rejected sequel to GLADIATOR (2000). Bruno Ganz and Otto Sander are close friends in real-life, as they are in the film. This was the final film for Curt Bois in an eighty year career that went as far back as silent films.

AVAILABILITY:The film is widely available on DVD and Bluray. Both the UK and US (Criterion Collection) releases feature a commentary with Wenders and Falk, deleted scenes, a documentary (different) and a booklet. The latter release has slightly better picture quality and more interviews and TV show excerpts.

SOURCES:
'The St. James Film Directors Encyclopedia', edited by Andrew Sarris, Visible Ink Press, 1998.
'2x Handke' by Peter Handke, Collier Books, 1989. ('About the Author' section.)
'Wim Wenders Discusses Painful HAMMETT with Coppola, Friendship with Nicholas Ray' by Edward Davies, The Playlist site, 22nd October 2011.
'Wim Wenders: On Film (Essays and Conversations)', by Wim Wenders, Faber and Faber, 2001.
'Wim Wenders': Wikipedia entry.
'Wings of Desire': liner notes from Criterion DVD release.
'Wings of Desire': Wikipedia entry.


Brent Wills Bechtel resides in Phoenix, Arizona. A movie obsessive and aspiring amateur filmmaker, he studied Film and Cinematography at Scottsdale Community College.

Paul Rowlands is a Japan-based writer. After completing a BA Humanities course (majoring in English and Science) at the University of Chester, he moved to Japan in 1999. Paul writes for the James Bond magazine, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and has had an almost lifelong obsession with cinema, something the advent of DVD only increased. An aspiring novelist, short story writer, screenwriter and filmmaker, he has until now mainly wrote for pleasure and on various blogs and so far unpublished projects. He is originally from the UK.

EXORCIST II : THE HERETIC (John Boorman, 1977)

Richard Burton, Linda Blair, Louise Fletcher, Kitty Winn, Max Von Sydow, James Earl Jones, Paul Henreid, Ned Beatty, Joey Green. 118 minutes (original theatrical version); 102 minutes (recut version).

by John C. Kerr and Paul Rowlands


PART ONE 

One of the seminal films of the 1970s was undoubtedly THE EXORCIST (1973), based on the 1971 bestseller by William Peter Blatty. It was a truly groundbreaking film, raising the stakes of what could be shown on screen. The film also managed to brush aside most of the cliches of the horror genre, probably because neither director William Friedkin or Blatty (who also scripted and produced the picture), regarded it as a horror movie. Explicit and powerful, the tale of demonic possession became an instant classic, its harsh realism contrasting (but paradoxically making more believable) the demonic terrors on display. Warner Brothers were taking a huge gamble, especially as its $10m budget was expensive for a horror movie. The gamble paid off. THE EXORCIST was a blockbuster success and a critical triumph. The film was even nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards in 1974 - unheard of for a 'horror film' (Blatty won the Best Adapted Screenplay Award).


The success of THE EXORCIST paved the way for later 'religious horrors' such as THE OMEN (1976) and its sequels. Another measure of its influence was the number of low-budget rip-offs it inspired, with four such films all premiering in 1974 in their country of origin - the Italian film CHI SEI? (aka BEYOND THE DOOR, released in Italy in 1974 and the US a year later), the German film MAGDALENA, VOM TEUFEL BESESSEN, a Turkish remake called SEYTAN (aka SATAN) and the blaxploitation horror, ABBY. The latter film was successfully pulled from theatres by Warners.  

With THE EXORCIST creating a mini-boom in 'devil child' movies (that the 'devil'-themed ROSEMARY'S BABY thre years previously had made possible), Warners must have realised that they were likely to lose out on their new cash cow if a sequel wasn't put into production quickly.

Producer Richard Lederer originally envisaged EXORCIST II in line with such rip-offs, telling Bob McCabe "What we essentially wanted to do with the sequel was to redo the first movie... Have the central figure, an investigative priest, interview everyone involved with the exorcism, then fade out to unused footage, unused angles from the first movie. A low-budget rehash - about $3 million - of THE EXORCIST, a rather cynical approach to movie-making, I'll admit. But that was the start."

Fittingly, Lederer's background was in advertising and publicity - he was Vice President of World Wide Advertising and Publicity at Warners for a decade and a half. The key talent from the first film were approached - Friedkin, Blatty and lead actress Ellen Burstyn (who had since won a Best Actress Oscar for Martin Scorsese's ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE, 1974) all declined to return. Lee J. Cobb was unwell and died from a heart attack at the age of 64, in February 1976 (three months before principal photography started).

Some key cast members from the original were persuaded to appear, crucially the now 17-years old Linda Blair as Regan MacNeil, and in flashbacks and fantasy sequences, Max Von Sydow as Father Merrin. Also reprising her role was Kitty Winn, as Sharon, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn)'s assistant in THE EXORCIST. After real-life priest William O'Malley was too busy to reprise his role of Father Dyer from the original film, the character was changed to Father Lamont, a younger priest who deeply respects Merrin's teachings. Eventually Boorman went with Richard Burton, who was 50 at the time and suffering a career drought. His alcoholism was showing its ravages, and he allegedly took the role to help get his pet project, EQUUS (1977) financed. Although originally written for a man, the role of the psychiatrist Dr. Tuskin was taken by Louise Fletcher, Oscar-winner for her memorable portrayal of Nurse Ratched in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975). Acclaimed stage actor James Earl Jones was cast in the important role of Kokumo. He had made his debut in Kubrick's DR. STRANGELOVE (1964), and in the same year EXORCIST II was released would provide the voice of Darth Vader in STAR WARS (1977). Ned Beatty has a small role as a pilot, and had made his debut in Boorman's unforgettable DELIVERANCE (1972). (He was the guy sodomised at gunpoint by the hillbilly.) The year before EXORCIST II, he gave an Oscar-nominated performance in Sidney Lumet's NETWORK (1976). This would be the final film for Austrian actor/ director Paul Henreid, who plays The Cardinal. Henreid is of course most famous for playing Victor Laszlo in CASABLANCA (1942).
Amongst the directors pursued for the original film were John Boorman (the others being Stanley Kubrick, Mike Nichols, Arthur Penn, Peter Bogdanovich and Mark Rydell, who was actually hired, but Blatty insisted on Friedkin). After Kubrick passed on the sequel (it's likely the success of the first film influenced his choice to adapt Stephen King's THE SHINING, 1980), Boorman was approached and came onto the project in October 1975 (he would stay until December the following year). He had turned down THE EXORCIST because he disliked the premise, seeing it as focussing on 'the torture of a child'. Despite impressing Hollywood with groundbreaking hits like POINT BLANK (1967) and DELIVERANCE (1972), Boorman was coming to EXORCIST II on the back of a flop - his decidedly odd but visually memorable 1974 fantasy, ZARDOZ, with Sean Connery.

Throughout the 70s Boorman was desperately trying to get his version of the Arthurian legend financed. No doubt the prospect of a huge hit that would enable the finance of EXCALIBUR (then titled 'Merlin' and later 'Knights') was one factor in accepting the EXORCIST II assignment. (Boorman also unsuccessfully attempted for many years to get his version of 'Lord of the Rings' financed, and EXCALIBUR used many elements of it. )


Boorman's appointment is interesting in that whilst the original film gained a great deal of its power from Friedkin's documentary approach and realism, Boorman is a very different filmmaker. His work, whilst often feeling and looking authentic, is not tied down by logic or an interest in realism. At his best, his films have a unique power that cut through to our subconscious love of fables and dreamlike stories, and are concerned with examining people under great stress (DELIVERANCE). At his worst, his intellectualism and ambition get the better of him, his characters speaking pretentious and awkward dialogue, and his narrative getting muddled and impenetrable (ZARDOZ). Whilst EXORCIST II had begun with the idea of rehashing the original, the stage was now set for a film that would be very different and not playing on the first film's strengths.

The sequel take place four years after the original, and follows two major (and inter-twining) plot strands. First of these is the story of Father Philip Lamont (Burton), a troubled Jesuit priest and former associate of Father Merrin, who is assigned by the Vatican to investigate the circumstances of Merrin's fatal exorcism and whether the claims that he was a 'heretic' are indeed true. (it is not explained why Merrin is being investigated as a 'heretic' for performing the exorcism on Regan in the original when the exorcism was shown to have been authorised by the Church.) The second strand is the continuing story of Regan (Blair), who is now aged sixteen and, although claiming to have no memory of the events of her possession, is being counselled by the psychiatrist Dr Gene Tuskin (Fletcher). As the story unfolds, Father Lamont and Doctor Tuskin unite to help Regan. Along the way, Lamont contacts Merrin's spirit while in a trance state, witnesses the circumstances of Merrin's death, and encounters the influence of Pazuzu, the demon from the first film. Lamont defies his superiors by flying to Africa to find answers via Kokumo (Jones), an African who had been exorcised by Merrin many years before and who may lead to the key to defeating Pazuzu. This leads to a return to the U.S., and an explosive climax at the original site of the exorcism in Georgetown, Washington DC.

Boorman saw EXORCIST II as 'a metaphysical drama' rather than a horror picture. The original screenplay was written by the playwright William Goodhart who, like Blatty, was a Roman Catholic and was inspired by the unorthodox ideas of the palaeontologist and Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Chardin's ideas, including the belief that the universe was evolving towards a maximum level of complexity and consciousness, had brought him into conflict with the Vatican. The character of Father Merrin in the original novel had been styled by Blatty after Teilhard. In EXORCIST II, Merrin is seen as believing that the universe is moving towards a point where it will fall either on the side of good or the side of evil.

Boorman was attracted by Goodhart's three-page treatment because it was about 'goodness' and presented an opportunity 'to film a riposte to the first picture'. Nevertheless, he wanted to make changes to Goodhart's later draft, and after Goodhart declined to make the changes, Boorman set about doing so with Rospo Pallenberg, who was writing the 'Merlin' script at the same time. The changes continued even after the commencement of principal photography. During production, they still did not have an ending in mind. Linda Blair later complained that ''It was a really good script at first. Then after everybody signed on they rewrote it five times and it ended up nothing like the same movie." Boorman and Pallenberg's script modifications are not credited in the final film, with Goodhart credited as the sole writer. Some indication of the level of Pallenberg's involvement can be assumed from his credit as Creative Associate. Linda Blair has even said that Pallenberg 'directed a lot of the film'. Barbara Pallenberg wrote the making of book published to coincide with the release of the film, and Rospo Pallenberg went on to work on THE EMERALD FOREST (1985) with Boorman, after their 'Merlin' project was filmed as EXCALIBUR. 

In addition to script problems, other mishaps befell the production. Permission to shoot in the original Georgetown house (and the iconic steps beside them) was refused, necessitating these locations be recreated in the studio. Boorman's original plans to shoot location footage in Ethiopia and the Vatican were also vetoed due to budgetary considerations (the rock churches and African villages were recreated on sound stages.) Linda Blair refused to wear the make-up she had donned in the first film; therefore, a second actress needed to be hired as a stand-in during for the brief sequences with the possessed Regan. There were also health issues afflicting cast and crew: Boorman suffered from the fungal infection San Joaquin Valley Fever, cancelling production for a month, and both Louise Fletcher and Kitty Winn were hit with gall bladder problems. Reshoots were required when it was found that some footage was oversaturated. 

PART TWO

EXORCIST II has a very bad reputation, and is considered to be one of the worst studio pictures ever made. Sandwiched betweeen the first and third fourth films, it is out of step with the series, and it's very tempting to see it as inappropriate in every way. For many, a spoof like REPOSSESSED, released the same year as THE EXORCIST III (1990), and featuring Linda Blair and Ned Beatty, is redundant because the second film had already done the job, albeit inadvertently.

Upon its release in summer 1977 there were reports of laughter at the film's New York premiere (William Peter Blatty remembers being the first to laugh at a Washington D.C. screening), and the picture garnered poor reviews, although the influential Pauline Kael actually prefereed it to the original. Because of this negativity, Boorman re-edited the film shortly after its release, rearranging scenes and dialogue and changing the ending (with the death of Father Lamont). This version, at 110 minutes, was also shorter. This cut also had an alternative opening sequence with stills from the first film, a narration by Father Lamont (establishing himself as a disciple and successor of Father Merrin) and an extended South American sequence which appears to locate the initial exorcism as taking place at a favela in Rio de Janeiro. It fared no better at the box-office, although it is worth noting that the film was not the flop many believe it to be. It cost around $14m to make (it did go $1.5m over budget) but it did gross $30m in the U.S. alone.  

Three years after the film's release, in their book 'The Golden Turkey Awards', the doyens of bad movies, Harry and Michael Medved, published the results of a readership poll for The Worst Film of All Time. THE EXORCIST II was first runner-up (the winner was PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, 1959).

Like the original EXORCIST, and in line with Boorman's intentions for the film, the film should be seen as a metaphysical drama rather than a straightforward horror film, an intriguing meditation on the nature of good and evil. If you want gore and scares, go elsewhere; EXORCIST II is not for you. A criticism of many sequels is that they are often rehashes of the originals, offering 'more-of-the-same' (this is particularly true of the horror genre). Kudos should therefore be given to Boorman for breaking this tradition. The film is in no way a clone of the original, but tries to offer something substantially different. Boorman himself later excoriated himself for not giving the audience what they expected - ''The sin I committed was not giving the audience what it wanted in terms of horror...There’s this wild beast out there which is the audience. I created this arena and I just didn’t throw enough Christians into it.''. He is being too harsh: in fact, the difference in structure and tone between this and the first film can be seen as one of the film's strengths. The film is very complex, almost too complex. THE EXORCIST, whilst an equally intelligent film, unfolds its plot slowly, and proceeds logically along a linear path towards the climax. The sequel, on the other hand, has almost too many ideas than it can cope with, and flies off in more than one direction. 

Boorman's film is typically ambitious, but the unique mood of THE EXORCIST was very different to this film. We are never sure how seriously we are supposed to take the film. This is because it is deeply injured by some genuinely laugh-out-loud dialogue that is made even more so for coming out of the mouths of characters who would never have spoken like this in the previous film. THE EXORCIST, despite it's scares and disturbing mood, was actually quite funny and witty at times (it is more pronounced in the original book ,and also in Blatty's sequel - the 1983 novel 'Legion' and the 1990 movie THE EXORCIST III). EXORCIST II is funnier because it is ironically such a serious and po-faced film, and Boorman fails to maintain or convince us of the weird, highly-charged mood required to hang the dialogue on. Ellen Burstyn's Chris MacNeil would have been in guffaws at some of the lines:

Father Lamont to the pilot: ''I've flown this route before. It was on the wings of a demon.''

Kokumo to Lamont: ''If Pazuzu comes for you, I will spit a leopard.''

Lamont to Tuskin: 'Satan has become an embarassment to our progressive views.''

Sandra Phalor (Dana Plato), an autistic child, to Regan: ''What's the matter with you?''
Regan: "I was possessed by a demon. Oh, it's OK. He's gone.'' 
Regan's line is simply very bad writing. Blair is obviously a young woman whose growing out of her youthful innocence, an such a line could have convincingly come from the Regan of the first film, but not a 16 or 17 year old girl.

The sweeping plot of EXORCIST II leads to the two movies being very different in their structure. Plot elements include several exorcisms, locust swarms, ancient religion, modern religion and, of course, good and evil. It also includes a hypnotic machine known as the 'the synchroniser', which allows two minds to come into tune and enter a shared trance. The scenes featuring this device come across as laughable in a modern context, and have dated a lot. But the scenes are key to the film in that they represent the journey Boorman wants the audience to embark upon. If you take that leap of faith and are open-minded, you will get more out of the film and go on a trip that contrasts and complements the first film. If you cannot accept such uncool, 'out-there' ideas, you are going to have a tough time and regret signing up.

The cross-cutting between the various ideas is undeniably another reason why the film is held in such low regard - it covers quite a lot of ground and some of its ideas are over-elaborate and confusing. The original EXORCIST, although beginning in exotic climes (with Father Lankester Merrin encountering the work of the then-unnamed demon Pazuzu in Iraq), soon narrows its geographical focus first to Georgetown in Washington DC, then to a single house, and finally, to just one claustrophobic room where the final battle takes place.

EXORCIST II takes almost the opposite approach. It begins with Father Lamont's failed exorcism, and first encounter with Pazuzu, in a very cramped and claustrophobic room in South America (mirroring the small focus of the previous film's climax); after that, it opens out considerably. The action take place in a number of locations - South America is followed by New York, Ethiopia, back to Washington DC and ultimately to that same small Georgetown room. In contrast to the first film, many of the events, particularly those in Africa, takes place outdoors. Even the interior sets are open and expansive; the clinic with its various glass shutters revealing large internal spaces and hives of activity, and the modern flat where Regan lives, again very spacious, with floor to ceiling glass panels and a large balcony with views over New York. Father Lamont's journeys take him to Africa, and the imposing rock churches of Ethiopia. Even though many of the African scenes were created largely in the studio, the sweeping vistas of Glen Canyon, Utah and Page, Arizona provide admirable stand-ins. This is especially true in the sequence where Lamont is 'brushed by the wings' of Pazuzu and soars in his mind's eye over Africa, in a scene reminiscent of the flight over the alien world at the end of Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968). Cinematographer William A Fraker, who had photographed ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968), the film that had made 'demon'-related horror pics commercially viable in the first place, deserves praise for some beautiful visuals, which are more than complemented by Ennio Morricone's striking score, a mixture of classic Hollywood orchestral cues and tribal chants.


Flight is a theme that runs throughout the film. Pazuzu himself is depicted as an airborne demon - 'the king of the evil spirits of the air. In his brief appearance in the first film, it is as a winged statue. EXORCIST II expands on this. The locust is Pazuzu's avatar; close shots of a single locust are featured throughout the film as a signature of the demon's presence. There are also locust swarms as a signifier of evil, both in the African scenes and in the climax in Washington DC. Note also that most of the characters fly at some point in the film (Lamont more than once) and there are two close-up shots of Boeing 747s taking off, with their undercarriage folding up insect like the legs of an insect.

However, the central themes, as with the first film, are both possession and the battle between good and evil.

The idea of possession is arguably more complex in this film. Its predecessor focussed on Regan's plight, but in EXORCIST II, there are many examples of the possessed: the doomed girl in the opening sequence, the African boy Kokumo (Joey Green), Regan herself, even Sharon (leading to her suicide by self-immolation at the end of the film). It can also be argued that Regan and Lamont are 'possessed' with each other as they become psychically linked after using the 'synchroniser' device. Father Lamont, after his contact with Pazuzu, is also 'possessed' by Pazuzu, leading to a weakening of his faith and thus becoming 'the heretic' of the title, only eventually redeemed by Regan's goodness in the final scene, where her influence proves greater than Pazuzu (who has left her body and become a 'false Regan' avatar that Lamont eventually vanquishes), freeing them all and allowing Good to triumph. As Lamont puts it: ''The time has come. Now we are saved and made strong.'' 

Boorman expands on his theme of 'goodness' by having the idea of evil (in the form of Pazuzu) being drawn to people who are innately good, usually with healing powers. Three characters in the film exemplify this, starting with the unnamed South American girl who dies in the opening sequence, who is noted as being a healer. Also a force for good is Kokumo, initially possessed by Pazuzu as a child while trying to repel an attack by locusts (here Pazuzu's 'evil spirits of the air', but successfully exorcised by Father Merrin). In adulthood, he becomes a doctor who is engaged in research on grasshoppers in an attempt to find a way to stop locusts swarming. The final 'good' character is, of course, Regan, who is seen 'curing' an autistic girl at the clinic. This innate goodness is the reason that she became a target of Pazuzu, and why Pazuzu remained dormant to her. No real explanation is given as to why Pazuzu is still there within her, and why he hasn't manifested himself for four years after apparently being 'exorcised'. 

The film also creates contrasts between religion and science (the latter in the form of psychiatry) although the use of the 'synchroniser'- created for the film as a plot device -suggests that psychic connections can be made and therefore the two disciplines of the natural and supernatural can, in certain circumstances, be reconciled. Doctor Tuskin and Father Lamont do become allies. The film therefore presents both science and religion as forces for good, hence why they are contrasted but not conflicted. 

  Various other thematic contrasts can be noted in EXORCIST II. In fact, the entire film is a complex maze of oppositions: faith/ heresy, reality/ illusion, modern Christianity (progressive Roman Catholicism with its downplaying of Satan)/ ancient Christianity (the Ethiopian faith is one of the oldest forms of the religion). Further to this is the opposition of Christianity with the more ancient (non-Christian) evil of Pazuzu.

The film uses a lot of 'mirroring' techniques to reflect characters and their relationships, either as reflections on glass (as in the 'heart attack' sequence in the psychiatrist's office, where the reflection of possessed Regan/Pazuzu attempts to kill Dr. Tuskin), superimpositions ('good' Regan and 'evil' Regan) or match cuts (in the climax, the intercutting between the young Kokumo attempting the ritual banishment of the locusts with Regan in Georgetown attempting - successfully - a similar ritual.)

The film's major problem is the ending, in which, almost literally,all hell breaks loose. It has everything: a chase, a crash, self-immolation, a literal fight with a demon, a house falling to pieces, a swarm of locusts over Washington DC. It is all a bit too much, and some of the scenes (the fight on the bed with the 'false Regan' seem very contrived, as does the way that Lamont and Regan walk calmly away, leaving Dr. Tuskin to watch as the previously deserted street fills with spectators and emergency vehicles. As mentioned earlier, the script was being constantly redrafted during production, and the climax was written late, which may explain why so many ideas and events collide in such a mish mash of plot-points. 


PART THREE
Linda Blair, now four years older (both in real life and as a character) has to project herself in a different way. She essays her role well, and conveys the goodness and positive nature of her character, while still hinting at a deeper sadness (deep down, she can remember Father Merrin and his death). Blair convincingly displays a pleasant. strong-minded, 'innocent' teenager, while also able to play a seductive role (in the final sequence, as one of the incarnations of the Regan avatar endeavouring to tempt Father Lamont). The flashbacks to Regan's exorcism, in which Regan is played by another actress, are very unconvincing, and one wonders why footage from the original film was not used instead. Blair found a career in 'B' movies in the 70s and 80s and remains an icon because of her role in the EXORCIST series.

Richard Burton's portrayal is also very subtle; to the cynical eye he may initially appear wooden, but this slightly passive portrayal emphasises the hesitancy within the Lamont character, a troubled man wrestling with his faith and feeling powerless against the powers of darkness (hence his inability to step in to save the South American girl). Burton died in 1984 from a cerebral haemorrhage at the age of 58.

Louise Fletcher is excellent in a very different role from her ice cold Nurse Ratched in CUCKOO'S NEST, coming across as a warm and concerned substitute parent for Regan. Interestingly, given her role in the film as a woman who helps those with disabilities, both of Fletcher's real-life parents were deaf and worked with the deaf and hard-of-hearing. This role is obviously a lot closer to the real her than that of her most famous role. Kitty Winn plays her role with the right level of bewilderment, and, in a much different movie, is a welcome linking device to the original film. Together with Fletcher and Burton, they create a kind of substitute family for regan in the absence of Ellen Burstyn playing her mother. It has to be said that had Burstyn returned, her acting style would have welcomely grounded the film a lot more. James Earl Jones, in his brief role, also performs well, represented in visions as a holy man capable of banishing Pazuzu and also, in the 'real world' as a modern scientist. Max Von Sydow and Paul Henreid are not really given a chance to shine and are wasted in the picture. 

John Boorman bounced back from the ordeal of two perceived failures in a row with EXCALIBUR in 1981, a film that like all his work gets better over time. The film had a more consistent and convincing tone, mood,and vision, perhaps learning from the mistakes made by EXORCIST II. Nevertheless, Martin Scorsese praised EXORCIST II as one of his guilty pleasures in an article in Film Comment magazine a year after its release ('Martin Scorsese's Guilty Pleasures', September/October 1978). He remarked that ''The picture asks: does great goodness bring upon itself great evil? This goes back to the Book of Job; it's God testing the good. In this sense, Regan is a modern-day saint... I like the first EXORCIST, because of the Catholic guilt I have, and because it scared the hell out of me; but THE HERETIC surpasses it. Maybe Boorman failed to execute the material, but the movie still deserved better than it got." Now may be the time to follow Scorsese's lead, and give the film its due. Despite its flaws, it remains an interesting work, and one that is long overdue for re-assessment.

NB: Richard Burton also plays a priest in the films BECKET (1964), NIGHT OF THE IGUANA (1964), THE SANDPIPER (1965) and ABSOLUTION (1978). In the scene where Regan sleepwalks and stands on the edge of the roof of a skyscraper, the ground below (Fifth Avenue) is real, bringing a frightening reality to a dreamlike sequence. For the climax, the 2500 locusts died at a rate of a hundred a day.

AVAILABILITY: The original 118-minute theatrical version of the film is available on DVD, but not yet Blu-ray. It features the alternate opening as a special feature. Boorman's re-cut is currently unavailable, having only been released on VHS and 16mm.The trailer to EXORCIST II can be found on YouTube: the trailer is interesting in two ways. Firstly, it is practically a condensation of the entire film. No major scene (including the climax) is missing. Secondly, it is incredibly fast paced, possibly leading the audience to to expect a thrill-packed rollercoaster rather than the more measured film they would be presented with.

RECOMMENDED VIEWING: There are five EXORCIST films in total, all of which are interesting despite differences in quality and tone. All of the sequels/ prequels had difficult shoots, post-production periods and have reputations as flawed works.

THE EXORCIST III is probably the most acclaimed of them, with many believing it to be the 'true' sequel to THE EXORCIST, but it was compromised by studio interference. Interestingly, Blatty himself considers the original novel, 'The Ninth Configuration' ( his 1978 reworking of his 1966 novel, 'Twinkle, Twinkle, ''Killer'', Kane; filmed by him in 1980) and "Legion' to form a trilogy.

John Frankenheimer (THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, 1962) was hired to direct a prequel to the original film but left the production due to health issues, dying a month later. He was replaced by Paul Schrader (the writer of TAXI DRIVER, 1976 and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, 1988 amongst many works), a filmmaker whose ouevre has frequently delved into issues of religious faith, and was in many ways an ideal choice. The studio replaced him after the film was shot, wanting more gore and shocks, and took the unprecedented step of completely reshooting the film with another director, DIE HARD 2's Renny Harlin. This was released as EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING in 2004, and surprisingly, Schrader's version saw the light of day, released as DOMINION: PREQUEL TO 'THE EXORCIST' a year later on DVD. Both films feature Stellan Skarsgard as Father Lankester Merrin in Africa exorcising a possessed boy, but the circumstances in these prequels are much different from the exorcism of Kokumo in EXORCIST II.

It is worth viewing ZARDOZ (1974), an earlier, equally ambitious John Boorman fantasy which has also split critical opinion, and also his earthy version of the Arthurian legend, EXCALIBUR (1981).

SOURCES:
'The Exorcist - Out of the Shadows' by Bob McCabe, Omnibus Press, 1999.
'Exorcist II - The Heretic'
: IMDB entry.
'Exorcist II - The Heretic': Wikipedia entry on the film.
'Rich Man, Boorman'. John Boorman interview with Walter Chaw, Film Freak Central website, 13th March 2005.
'The Golden Turkey Awards', Harry and Michael Medved, Putnam, 1980.
'Linda Blair of THE EXORCIST Reflects on the Devil Inside' by Patrick McD, Hollywood Chicago.com, 15th July 2010.
'The Making of EXORCIST II -THE HERETIC' by Barbara Pallenberg, Warner Books, 1977, excerpted at The Louise Fletcher Appreciation Page site.
'The Use of Arthurian Legend in Hollywood Film: From Connectitut Yankees to Fisher Kings' by Rebecca A and Samuel J Umland, Greenwood, 1996.